Creating a new religion

religions never help us, even the pagans, they give a great philosofy, but isn't really good for us, first, because this give a false expectancy to the human, second, because you are creating a god, this isn't rpg

religions never help us, even the pagans, they give a great philosofy, but isn't really good for us, first, because this give a false expectancy to the human, second, because you are creating a god, this isn't rpg

What do you mean by false expectancy? What is a "true expectancy?"

If "this" (I assume you mean life) isn't an RPG, than what is this? I think it's a great simile, myself. Reality is very much like a role playing game.

religions never help us, even the pagans, they give a great philosofy, but isn't really good for us, first, because this give a false expectancy to the human, second, because you are creating a god, this isn't rpg

What do you mean by false expectancy? What is a "true expectancy?"

The immediate assumption would be that of christians praying only in 'times of need', rather than all the time and of their own volition. Seeing god as symbol rather than the greater underlying process of reality.

To be pedantic: why even bother using the word god at that point? In polytheistic religions god implies a certain level of anthropomorphism. Christianity capitalizes the G to denote the consolidated god, but this seems like a move designed to ease the conversion process for heathens. It seems to obscure the "supreme or ultimate reality" aspect of the word.

Question (not aimed at anyone in particular):

If perennial philosophy eventually evolved into the New Age movement, which is clearly full of wankers, what values prevent other Traditionalists from going down a similar path?

I think we've all met the airhead chick who claims to be "spiritual but not religious", and uses a bunch of quasi-profound concepts/memes (preferably of eastern origin) to decorate and inflate herself. This level of superficiality isn't usually found in, let's say for example, Islam. Why is this? Is it the dominating aspect of the institution? Lack of novelty? Does the average Muslim understand the philosophical underpinnings of the religion, or does he just follow the rules to avoid decapitation? Can the crowd be expected to understand, or does the religion have to reduce itself to a simple "do and don't do" list for it to be effective.

Even in these types of major religions, a practitioner's self concept of righteousness is often a form of conceit. Can one's ego be truly overcome (and not just mitigated), or is it a paradoxical situation, where fancying it to be so is in itself an act of egotism?

Many good questions, none of which can be satisfactorily answered. One may rise above conceit, dispense with ego, escape the human delusion. But this is vanishingly rare, and anyone who has not done so is unable to recognize what it is, or looks like. Anyone who has realized the God in him has passed beyond any possibility of communicating his state to any who have not. This is the paradox of awareness. You may - at great cost - attain it, but you will never be able, from that point on, to share it. Jesus was as good an example as any, of what happens to those who try too hard, for too long. And Christianity as good an example as any, of the long-term consequences of that tragic failure to communicate.

To be pedantic: why even bother using the word god at that point? In polytheistic religions god implies a certain level of anthropomorphism. Christianity capitalizes the G to denote the consolidated god, but this seems like a move designed to ease the conversion process for heathens. It seems to obscure the "supreme or ultimate reality" aspect of the word.

Question (not aimed at anyone in particular):

If perennial philosophy eventually evolved into the New Age movement, which is clearly full of wankers, what values prevent other Traditionalists from going down a similar path?

I think we've all met the airhead chick who claims to be "spiritual but not religious", and uses a bunch of quasi-profound concepts/memes (preferably of eastern origin) to decorate and inflate herself. This level of superficiality isn't usually found in, let's say for example, Islam. Why is this? Is it the dominating aspect of the institution? Lack of novelty? Does the average Muslim understand the philosophical underpinnings of the religion, or does he just follow the rules to avoid decapitation? Can the crowd be expected to understand, or does the religion have to reduce itself to a simple "do and don't do" list for it to be effective.

Even in these types of major religions, a practitioner's self concept of righteousness is often a form of conceit. Can one's ego be truly overcome (and not just mitigated), or is it a paradoxical situation, where fancying it to be so is in itself an act of egotism?

Entropy affects everything. Anything over time will be tainted by lesser people, The thing concerning religions there are always those who look deeper into said religion(esoteric) and those who just do what there told to get whatever goodies await them in the after life(exoteric). A new religion would not be any different.